My new post: to get back in the Paris climate agreement, Biden pledged to reduce US national emissions 50% by 2030.
That’s ... fine. It’s a nice bit of symbolism. Enjoy the warm feeling. But remember: it’s policy that matters. Policy, policy, policy. vox.com/22401917/biden…
Policy, policy, policy.
Relevant to my earlier Carville tweet.
Y'all. The point of the piece & the thread is not to critique Biden or say he hasn't pushed on climate policy. He has! It's just that the amount of progress available to him is utterly unrelated to the target he offered in Paris. The target is not a causal agent; it does nothing.
This is true of all the thousands of targets pledged by various entities throughout the history of climate change. They are symbols that have drawn a wildly oversized amount of attention from climate advocates & activists. They "send a message" & "change the conversation." But...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I had a thought I wanted to add to this piece, but it was a bit of a wonky diversion, so I left it out. I will instead tackle it here on Twitter, the ideal venue for complicated wonky diversions. 🤪 volts.wtf/p/america-is-m…
There's a concept in economics (from recently deceased Canadian economist Robert Mundell) of an "optimum currency area" (OCA). His idea was that common currencies should go beyond national borders to regions that share certain features. investopedia.com/terms/o/optimu…
The euro is the baby of this idea, though later some people (I think Krugman among them?) criticized it by saying that, in fact, countries like Germany & Greece are not similar enough, & do not share strong enough central gov't, for the euro to work well.
Like all the right's demonstrable lies, this will lead to ... nothing. None of the people who told it will apologize or feel any regret. None of the people who believed it will feel like suckers. No reporter will apply additional skepticism the next time. washingtonpost.com/politics/biden…
The only thing you need to know about the future course of the GOP is that it is operating in a context in which lying is all upside, no downside. It's like playing the lottery, but the tickets are free -- possible jackpot, zero cost. Why wouldn't they keep doing it?
Here's a challenge. Of all the lies the right has told in the 21st C -- about Iraq, terrorism, climate change, the economy, Obama, Hillary, voting, etc. etc. -- name one that has harmed them in any way. Legally, electorally, financially, reputationally, anything. Name one.
This is a superb history & analysis of Manchin from @awprokop -- a must-read for everyone. It helped me realize, on a deeper, more informed & nuanced level, that I really fucking hate this guy. vox.com/22339531/manch…
"I truly believe in my heart of hearts, if we get rid of the filibuster, we would lose the purpose of this democracy, of this republic, which is for the people."
I don't care if he believes this in his heart, his ass, or his elbow, it is demonstrable, indefensible bullshit.
Am I supposed to find this admirable? It's either unforgiveable naivete or deliberate bullshit. Either way it ought to draw mockery & scorn. But in the beltway, naivete/bullshit about bipartisanship is always, always celebrated.
Older generations in the US do not appreciate the fact that Gen X & younger Americans have never seen functional politics based on shared facts & compromise. To them it might as well be a fairy tale. They've *only* see a conservative movement descending into reactionary madness.
I mean, I'm pretty f'ing old at this point, but even for me, when I think back to my very first consciousness of US politics, it was deranged Republicans accusing Bill Clinton of running drugs & having people killed. The Starr witch hunt. Dan Burton shooting a watermelon. Etc.
The actual conservative movement & the actual GOP abandoned moderation a long time ago. The only reason there's any notion of Republican moderation at all in US culture is that the *media carries the torch*. It's center-left pundits & VSPs who keep the idea alive.
Don't wanna have this whole dumb argument again, but I will quickly explain why Gates' (and similar tech dudes') rhetoric bugs me. First, by way of preface & forestalling familiar objections, here are three true things about the innovation "debate":
1. The world *could* decarbonize entirely with existing technology. It's physically possible. It would just be extremely expensive, especially the last 10-20%. 2. Better technology is better. That's why they call it "better technology." Of course we want it & should develop it!
I know, I know, I'm grumpy about everything, but this bugs me, this notion that science dictates what we must do about climate change, and if you just accept science, you accept the whole program. It's not so.
Don't get me wrong: I'm super into aggressive action to address climate change, largely along the lines supported by Dems & Biden (but faster/bigger). But I don't support it because "science." I support it because I value human life & believe in the value of collective action.
When people on the left smuggle their values in under cover of "science," it (rightly!) convinces their opponents that there's some slight-of-hand at work. It's irksome, because those values are *good & worth explicitly defending*.